Judges and Judiciary
Aug. 9, 2002
Conflict on Interpreters' Status Stalls Bill
SACRAMENTO - A proposal to turn court interpreters into government employees was put into limbo Wednesday as supporters and opponents continue to squabble over whether the measure should be enacted.
SB371, introduced by Sen. Martha Escutia, D-Whittier, would change the status of the overwhelming majority of court interpreters, who are now independent contractors.
The bill was put on hold at Wednesday's hearing of the Assembly Appropriations Committee pending a decision by legislative leaders later this month about which bills will receive state funding next year.
With a price tag of $20 million, the bill may be dropped in a year of severe budget constraints. But Escutia's powerful support means it stands an even chance of winning funding.
Even without the financial issue, the measure has been controversial from the start and has inflamed emotions among the state's court interpreters.
About half of the state's 1,200 interpreters want to remain independent contractors in order to retain flexible work hours and have the freedom to engage in higher-paying private jobs.
"I'm in business for myself. I don't want to be employed by anyone," said Carlos Cerecedo, president of the California Court Interpreters Association, the group that opposes the bill. CCIA claims to have 800 members.
Cerecedo said that many of his members are immigrants to the United States who value their entrepreneurial freedom.
"This bill would turn our whole lives upside down," he said.
Two other groups, the California Federation of Interpreters and the Bay Area Court Interpreters Association, are sponsoring the bill. Most of their 600 members want to become court employees to obtain benefits and engage in collective bargaining.
"Interpreters are the only group of professionals in the courts that don't have benefits and, more importantly, don't have the right to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment," said Mary Lou Aranguren, legislative director for the two groups.
There's more at stake than pay and benefits, however. Both sides argue that the outcome of the legislative fight could have a big impact on the number of interpreters available to serve in the already understaffed courts.
The bill's sponsors argue that court interpreters should be employees to ensure that the courts have a reliable supply of services for non-English speakers.
"This bill is critical to make sure people who do not speak English have access to the courts," Escutia said..
Opponents, however, say that if the bill passes, many interpreters who are now independent contractors will leave the courts altogether to pursue more lucrative private work.
Through a complicated scheme, the bill would severely restrict the ability of independent contractors to continue working in the courts.
"To exclude the ability of independent contractors to keep working in the courts will create a giant exodus of highly qualified people," said Cerecedo. "The cost of court delays will be gigantic."
Cerecedo called for a compromise in which some interpreters can remain independent but still work for the courts.
"All we're saying is that this should be a matter of choice," he said.
But Aranguren said allowing a large proportion of contractors to remain independent would undermine the collective bargaining power of the interpreters' proposed union, The Newspaper Guild-Communications Workers of America.
So far, the two sides are far from a compromise.
Caught between the battling factions, the Administrative Office of the Courts has opted to remain neutral.
SB371 has already cleared the state Senate and the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee. In an unusual move, it was not referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, which normally would have had jurisdiction over a bill affecting the courts.
If approved by the Appropriations Committee, it would next face a vote on the Assembly floor. The deadline for the Legislature to pass bills this year is Aug. 31.
Hudson Sangree
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com